Abandonment of work is a form of neglect of duty that can justify dismissal for a just cause, but it is often misunderstood: mere absence from work, even if prolonged, does not by itself constitute abandonment. For abandonment to be a valid ground for dismissal, two requisites must concur: first, the failure to report for work or absence must be without a valid or justifiable reason; and second, and more importantly, there must be a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second element being the more determinative factor, manifested by some overt act from which it may be deduced that the employee has no more intention to continue working. The intent to abandon must be clear and deliberate; it cannot be lightly presumed from absence alone. Courts have consistently held that an employee who takes steps inconsistent with an intent to abandon, such as promptly filing a complaint for illegal dismissal and seeking reinstatement, negates the claim of abandonment, since a worker who sues to get their job back plainly did not intend to give it up. Even where abandonment appears present, the employer must still observe procedural due process: it must serve a notice to the employee at their last known address directing them to explain and to report back, and a second notice of the decision, before dismissing for abandonment. An employer who dismisses for abandonment without meeting both the substantive requisites and the notice requirement risks a finding of illegal dismissal. So abandonment requires a proven, deliberate intent to quit, not just absences, and the employer must still give notice.
Two Requisites
- The absence must be without a valid or justifiable reason; and
- There must be a clear intention to sever the employment — the more determinative element — shown by an overt act.
Mere Absence Is Not Enough
Abandonment cannot be presumed from absence alone. The intent to abandon must be clear and deliberate. Filing an illegal-dismissal complaint seeking reinstatement negates abandonment — a worker suing to get their job back did not intend to give it up.
Notice Is Still Required
Even with apparent abandonment, the employer must observe due process: a notice to explain and report back sent to the employee's last known address, and a second notice of the decision. Skipping this risks illegal dismissal.
Practical Takeaways
- Abandonment needs unjustified absence + a clear intent to quit;
- Mere absence is not abandonment;
- The employer must still send the two notices before dismissing.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is being absent the same as abandonment? No. Mere absence, even if prolonged, does not by itself constitute abandonment. There must also be a clear and deliberate intention to sever the employment, shown by an overt act.
What are the requisites of abandonment? First, the absence must be without a valid or justifiable reason. Second, there must be a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, which is the more determinative element.
Does filing an illegal dismissal case defeat abandonment? Yes. An employee who promptly files a complaint for illegal dismissal seeking reinstatement negates a claim of abandonment, because a worker suing to get their job back plainly did not intend to abandon it.
Does the employer still need to give notice for abandonment? Yes. The employer must serve a notice at the employee's last known address directing them to explain and report back, and a second notice of the decision, or risk a finding of illegal dismissal.
This commentary is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance specific to your situation, please consult a licensed attorney.
If you have questions about your rights or options under Philippine law, our firm is available to assist. You may reach us via Viber or WhatsApp, call us at 0995 433 5550, or send an email to vivasnobles@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.